Under the Act, children with Down syndrome and other disabilities are automatically refused permanent residency because they are judged a financial burden to taxpayers.

“Our migration laws are still based on discriminatory and prejudicial thinking that assumes people with Down syndrome will be a drain on the nation’s resources,” Down Syndrome Australia CEO Catherine McAlpine says.

In 2008, German-born Dr Moeller was denied permanent residency because his 13-year-old son Lukas had Down syndrome. It was a case that generated so much outrage that it sparked a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s treatment of disabled migrants.

Dr Moeller had brought his family to country Victoria after taking a job at a local hospital in response to the Australian Government’s plea to foreign doctors to ease the chronic shortage of medical professionals in rural areas.

“It’s the worst thing that happened to me, worse even than when they told me Lukas had Down syndrome,” Lukas’s mother Isabella told Britain’s The Telegraph at the time.

“We fought for years against discrimination in Germany against Lukas.”

The decision was upheld on appeal by the Migration Review Tribunal.

Outraged, the community in Dr Moeller’s adopted town of Horsham started a petition that led to a massive media campaign drawing attention to Australia’s “archaic” and “discriminatory” policy on disabled migrants.

It led to the then Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, overturning the decision and calling for a review of the law that automatically rejected Lukas because of his Down syndrome.

The Moeller family were allowed to stay after the then Immigration Minister Chris Evans overturned a deportation ruling following a massive campaign that drew attention to our discriminatory laws and embarrassed Australia.Source: News Limited

And so the parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s treatment of disabled migrants began.

In 2012, the federal government published its response to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration Inquiry into the Migration Treatment of Disability. It had rejected most of the committee’s recommendations, including a crucial one calling for the removal of the Migration Act’s exemption from the DDA. Which means that families with children who have Down syndrome can still be barred from starting a life in Australia. It raised the lifetime cost threshold for individuals with a disability from $21,000 to $40,000, a figure designed to look good on paper but meaningless in practice.

“No one with Down syndrome could ever meet that criteria, it’s impossible,” says migration consultant George Lombard, a former Australian government and United Nations lawyer.

“The costs associated with Down syndrome run far, far higher. A million dollars over a lifetime. These laws are used to turn down (migrants) with Down syndrome all the time. And not just Down syndrome, other disabilities too. It happens every day.

“The only other way, really, is through a waiver, a ministerial discretion.”

Mr Lombard says the inquiry failed to change the law and Ms McAlpine agrees.

“Despite the community outrage in 2008 at the treatment of Dr Moeller and his family, who were initially denied permanent residency because his son had Down syndrome, nothing much has changed,” she says.

“The current community outrage over the heartbreaking story of baby Gammy reflects the community’s inclusive position back in 2008.

“However, our migration laws are still based on discriminatory and prejudicial thinking that assumes people with Down syndrome will be a drain on the nation’s resources. There is absolutely no recognition of the significant and valuable contribution people with Down syndrome and their families make to the life of their community and the nation as a whole.”

Julian, the son of Down syndrome Australia CEO Catherine McAlpine.Source: Supplied

Ms McAlpine, who has a 13-year-old son, Julian, with Down syndrome, said our laws breached the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has been ratified by Australia.

Article 18 of the Convention says: “State parties shall recognise the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities ... have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability.”

The government denies our immigration laws are framed to exclude people with Down syndrome and other disabilities.

“There is no law barring people with Down’s syndrome from getting an Australian visa,” a Minister for Immigration and Border Protection spokesman told news.com.au.

“Active tuberculosis is the only condition that of itself precludes the grant of a visa, given it is a public health risk. The health requirement is not condition-specific. It is an objective test to determine whether the ongoing care of an individual would result in undue costs on the Australian community or prejudice the access of Australian citizens and permanent residents to health care in short supply.

“There are health waiver provisions that exist for certain subclasses of visa whereby someone deemed to have failed the health requirement can have waiver provisions applied. The number of visas eligible for health waiver provisions has been expanded in recent years following the Moeller case.

“In addition, the significant costs threshold used in the health requirement assessment has been raised, meaning fewer people would fail the health requirement.

“Following the Joint Standing Committee on Migration report, there is an annual review of the significant cost threshold — it is currently set at $40,000 over the lifetime of the individual.”

Have your say

Comments on this story

mimi of Sydney Posted at 1:50 PM August 12, 2014

As the fact we are a small nation by the number of population, we do not have the financial resource to provide a global paradise for all the disable people from anyway or everywhere to live in Australia happily after. The regulations of immigration are established to make sure for the best interests for Australia/ our nation, I think that have to be more detailed assessment and restrictions as anyone we consider to take in, if there is a clear indication, which will cost a great deal of, our tax payerâs money to support he/she to live in Australia, why we should take in? I am in my primary working age, I noticed that the new budget, it seemed as have a great difficulty to provide the standard of live for our mums and dads ( senior citizen) and to provide a good education and reasonable unstressed living for our kids (6.2% unemployed).
I think the government needs amending our immigration laws to frame and to exclude people with a clear indication that would contribute nothing to our nation but cost a great deal of our tax payers of money, the government have to look after our own nation and act in the best interest to our citizen!

Lila Adams Posted at 1:36 PM August 12, 2014

Gemma White. So you can look at that little boy running around the back garden playing football and say his parents should have killed him?

Coach of Sydney Posted at 1:26 PM August 12, 2014

I don't understand why the author of this article compares the situation of the doctor and his son with Down Syndrome and Gammy's case. Because Gammy is born to Australian parents, that would make him an Australian citizen by descent. Was the doctor's son born in Australia, or was he attempting to migrate here with his son? Soooooooo ... no matter what, Gammy should be eligible for all benefits provided to an Australian citizen correct? Why are News Limited journos so incompetent because Gammy's case really has nothing to do with "migration" but an Australian coming home ...

A NOTE ABOUT RELEVANT ADVERTISING: We collect information about the content (including ads) you use across this site and use it to make both advertising and content more relevant to you on our network and other sites.